- 29 “assets of every kind, whether tangible or intangible, movable or immovable, however acquired, and legal documents or instruments in any form, including electronic or digital, evidencing title to, or interest in, such assets, including, but not limited to, bank credits, travellers cheques, bank cheques, money orders, shares, securities, bonds, drafts, letters of credit”. This definition covers many kinds of financial instruments and includes also other assets. Since no specific objection to the Court’s jurisdiction was made by the Russian Federation with regard to the scope of the term “funds” and in particular to the reference in Ukraine’s submissions to the provision of weapons, this issue relating to the scope of the ICSFT need not be addressed at the present stage of the proceedings. However, the interpretation of the definition of “funds” could be relevant, as appropriate, at the stage of an examination of the merits. 63. An element of an offence under Article 2, paragraph 1, of the ICSFT is that the person concerned has provided funds “with the intention that they should be used or in the knowledge that they are to be used” to commit an act of terrorism. The existence of the requisite intention or knowledge raises complex issues of law and especially of fact that divide the Parties and are properly a matter for the merits. The same may be said of the question whether a specific act falls within the meaning of Article 2, paragraph 1 (a) or (b). This question is largely of a factual nature and is properly a matter for the merits of the case. Within the framework of the ICSFT, questions concerning the existence of the requisite mental elements do not affect the scope of the Convention and therefore are not relevant to the Court’s jurisdiction ratione materiae. Should the case proceed to the examination of the merits, those questions will be decided at that stage. 64. In light of the above, the Court concludes that the objection raised by the Russian Federation to its jurisdiction ratione materiae under the ICSFT cannot be upheld. B. Procedural preconditions under Article 24 of the ICSFT 65. The Court needs now to examine whether the procedural preconditions set forth in Article 24, paragraph 1, of the ICSFT (see paragraph 34 above) have been fulfilled. In this context, the Court will consider whether the dispute between the Parties could not be settled through negotiation within a reasonable time and, if so, whether the Parties were unable to agree on the organization of an arbitration within six months from the date of the request for arbitration. 1. Whether the dispute between the Parties could not be settled through negotiation 66. The Russian Federation notes that, under Article 24, paragraph 1, of the ICSFT, the Parties must pursue negotiations over their dispute and that, in the event of failure, they shall try to agree on a settlement by way of arbitration. It argues that the Court may be seised only if genuine attempts to pursue these procedures have been made and both failed.